Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

Let me start by saying yes I hate guns and No Im not American.
Many gun advocates have told me to mind my own business and not to comment on American laws or issues.
I find this ironic since the argument they will always fall back on is the fact gun ownership is protected by the constitution, well so is free
speech!!! While this may not apply to me we are in an INTERNATIONAL forum where I can give my opinion on anything I like (US law included), whether
you choose to read it or not is upto you.

Unfortunately this is a charged topic and it often descends into petty name calling and veiled insults (I myself have been guilty of this). Im making
this thread in the hopes of getting intelligent discussion going without all the childish stuff. I can and have taken many a verbal beating on this
topic recently and others in the past but on this thread I wont tolerate it. Anyone who responds to me or anyone else with anything less than complete
civility will be reported and hopefully banned.

I actually tried to post this before but was attacked before I could complete the OP.
The sad thing is only 1 poster out of at least 20 bothered to actually read the post and respond appropriately (even though you didnt agree with me
thank you mikenice81)
I will be ignoring any posts that dont specifically address points in this thread, not because I cant handle it or I dont have a response, but because
I only want to discuss whats written here.
I will also ignore people who say my opinion is invalid due to not being American.

Also I am not telling anyone what to do or what not to do, I am merely pointing out the contradictory nature of your arguments, this thread is here so
you can do the same thing to mine.

I will also number each point so that when people post without bothering to read the OP I can direct them to the point that addresses their
argument

Now thats out the way.............
I wanted to address in one comprehensive thread all the arguments I hear touted in the name of gun ownership.
I have gone through many of the recent threads and noted what gun owners have said. Being honest I find all of the arguments to be contradictory and
self defeating, but thats only an opinion.
Below I have listed them 1 by 1 and have addressed them logically and where possible with sources to back them up.
So without further ado

1) Its in our constitution

The 2nd Amendment I just found out (much to my surprise) consists of only 2 sentences

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The writing is somewhat ambiguous but I take it to mean an armed militia exclusively, not an armed citizenry.
This was written in a time of war on American soil, people being armed was a necessity, it most certainly is not today. America has arguably the best
trained and best equipped military in the world and geographically a land invasion is pretty much impossible. You no longer need guns, the redcoats
are no longer coming.

Someone in the other thread gave me this gem

James Madison, "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared," January 29, 1788:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition
more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms
of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain
that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local
governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by
these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in
Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

IThis was written around the same time as the 2nd amendment, Its actually laughable how out of date the above quote is.
The existence of a subordinate government

and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple
government of any form can admit of.

Your Gov is neither subordinate or lacking in ambition.

Those were very different times, there is no argument from that time or those circumstances that is valid in this day and age

2) We need them to defend ourselves against the government

Once again the US has the best military in the world, what exactly is an AK or even grenade launcher let alone handgun going to do against an army of
tanks, helicopters and drones except make you and your family a target?
Your military consists of American citizens, how many of your troops would be willing to fire on fellow citizens?
If it ever came to the Gov fighting the people I think they would pull out all the stops, even if you went to ground in the forests or mountains
somewhere, they have satellites that can read the writing on a small coin with heat sensing capabilities. How long do you think you will last?
In this day and age the most successful form of rebellion is a peaceful one, look at Egypt or as a better example India, both of these countries
achieved a change of government without violence, why can Americans not consider doing the same if it ever came to that?

3)Its not just the US that has this problem

Sorry but yes it is!!
Every country has murder, people with mental issues, criminals with guns and gun deaths yet no other country in the world has people going into
schools, malls, cinemas etc every few months blasting away at innocent people.
Yes massacres have happened in other places but once again not with anywhere near the frequency that they do in the US. The guns being used by these
people arent home made, they were either purchased legally or stolen from people (usually parents) who did purchase them legally.

Someone mentioned suicide bombers as proof of this being untrue, suicide bombers are politically or ideologically motivated and usually are not
citizens of the country they commit their act in.
These shootings are not politically or ideologically motivated and all so far all perpetrators have been American citizens

4)Its part of our culture/ its a tradition

Just because something is a tradition or part of culture doesnt make it right.
How many of you think female circumcision is correct?
How many of you think honour killings are justified?
How many of you think training bears to dance by putting them on hot plates that burn their feet is right?

All these things are traditions or part of different cultures yet all are in most sensible peoples minds just sick.
Just because something is part of your culture does not make it right.
It could be argued that with the frequency of these shooting sprees that this is now part of your culture!!!

5) If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns

Every country has criminals with guns, it has been suggested if you really want a gun you can get one.
This is true for criminals with resources to buy them and access to people who deal in them. I doubt very much that the majority of people who have
committed these recent shootings fit into this category.

Most criminals have weapons to either protect their drug stash or turf, actually using them they know is not good for business. By far the majority of
gun deaths are either crimes of passion or the work of mentally ill people, not drug dealers or bank robbers.

Also taking guns off the market takes away the ability of criminals to easily get guns.

This was posted in the other thread, somehow the person who posted felt this supported the argument for guns being legal

• 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
• 64% had been convicted of a crime.
• Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.117,118
• 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories).
119 Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.

So most gun crimes not committed against good law abiding citizens therefore using gun crime statistics as a reason for wanting a gun for safety is
bunk.
Im sure it makes you FEEL safer but its not the reality

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of
the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm,
or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun
dealers.

By making guns legal all you do is make it easy for criminals to access them

Guns and swords serve only 1 purpose, to kill!!!
Im not sure if gun advocates realise how ridiculous they sound when they say ban cars or alcohol, to be honest I dont even feel those comments are
worth addressing, knives however are worth talking about.

As weve seen with the chinese incident people who are unbalanced and want to hurt people will find a way to do so but thats be callous for a second
and look at the figures
Gunman walks into school and opens fire= 27 dead 20 injured
knife weilder walks into school and start slashing and stabbing= 0 dead 20 injured

If someone opens fire with a gun in a crowded place, even 100 feet away if your in his line of sight your a target, 3 teachers tried to rush the
gunman in the latest tragedy and all were shot down.
Someone walks into a mall and stabs someone, everyone scatters and to get to the next victim they need to chase them down, if you can get hold of a
chair, pole, piece of wood or even a handbag you have a fighting chance of being able to disarm him. Hell even with just your hands you can hold him
up till other people are able to help you overpower them.

7) Guns dont kill people, people kill people

Yes but a person with a gun can kill alot more people than a person without.
Guns make killing easy and impersonal, you can stand across a room pull out a gun and BANG someones dead.
As pointed out, with a knife, bat, pole you need to get within striking distance thereby giving the person a chance to either run or defend
themselves.

As many of you like to quote Washington banned guns... BUT
comparing the 10 years before the gun ban and the 10 years after the only statistically significant change to any crime figures showed gun deaths were
down!!!!!!!
There was only 1 year after the ban were gun deaths were equal to even the lowest year prior to the ban.
Banning guns in Washington saved an estimated 47 lives

8) I need it to keep my family safe

Everyone the world over worries about their families safety and security but most of us do just fine without a gun.
The reason most of you have put forward is that criminals have guns so you need them.
As addressed above the more guns in circulation the easier it is for the bad people to get them, it is a self defeating argument.

9) Guns aren’t the issue, we need to help mental people

I agree these people doing the shootings are slipping through the cracks but once again these crazy people have access to guns way to easily.
If they could only get access to knives then we would see headlines that read 20 injured instead of 27 killed

10) But look at what happened in the UK after guns were taken away

Despite figures saying gun crime was up, death by guns remained largely static and within acceptable statistical variation.

When gun crime is mentioned it is mainly reffering to armed robbery, Even if you have a gun on you if someone pulls a gun on you and demands your
wallet, phone etc etc would you really risk your life trying to pull it out?
No possesions are worth dying for!!!!

And once again most gun crime even in the UK is commited by criminals against other criminals, not law abiding citizens

11) Look at how little crime there is in Kennesaw where guns are mandatory

Ok first of all guns arent mandatory

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general
welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with
ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from
using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose
maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

So the law is pretty much the same as other places in the US that allow gun ownership, if you dont want a gun get one, if not, dont.
I find it unbelievable people who use this place as evidence for how good gun ownership is always miss this point

12)I use it for hunting

I can appreciate this and to me its the only acceptable reason for wanting a gun.
Of the estimated 100 Million gun owners in the US I wonder how many are hunters?
Ill take a stab and say bugger all (that means very few)

Plus when hunting for sport (I doubt many of these hunters are starving) wouldnt it be more sporting to use a bow and arrow?
A rifle is enough for hunting, no need for handguns or semi autos

13) Most gun crimes happen in gun free zones

When I heard about "gun free zones" I assumed it meant states or districts,counties etc etc.
It actually refers to school zones and the like.
I doubt very much the thinking of these people going into schools, malls and other GFZ is that no one will have guns, these are places with a large
amount of people in a small place.
Since most of these people plan on dying anyway I seriously doubt they are concerned about whether anyone else has guns and may fire on them

14) America isn’t the worst by far when it comes to gun deaths

True but statistically its right up there

In number of total gun deaths the US is fourth
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369

when adjusted to a per capita rate the US is 12th with 9 gun deaths a year per 100,000 people.

Now on either of these figures the USA is by far and away the leader when compared to other western countries.
Either way the fact that gun advocates quote that the US isnt the worst really says something about the way they think.

Most of these other countries are either experiencing civil war or serious drug wars. The US suffers from neither of these issues

15) I don’t care Im keeping my guns

This is what it basically comes down to, the gun is the adult equivalent of a teddy bear. It makes you feel all warm and snugly. They can strrp away
your other freedoms but as long as you have guns you dont care.

So they are the arguments I normally see given by gun advocates as reasons for why guns shouldnt face tougher restrictions or bans. To summarise my
position I dont believe guns everywhere is justified and the reason people want guns is because everyone else has guns and you dont feel safe without
one.
I personally believe they should be banned, guns already in circulation should stay there but no more to be sold.
Start a buyback scheme so that as people no longer feel they need their firearms they can be turned in therefore taking them out of circulation.
Anyone caught with a gun without the valid permits should face a mandatory jail term, since if they were illegal anyone caught with one would be upto
no good anyway I dont see this as an issue.

I enjoy this forum because it forces me to challenges my beliefs and actually think about what I hold to be true, I encourage and look forward to
anyone who doesnt agree with any of the above to CIVILY tell me how and why I am wrong.

Ahhh... I finally get to read the thread you put so much time and work into. Forgive me on the format if it seems odd for a reply but I'm replying in
the same way you wrote it for ease of reading on my end. You wrote a book!

(hunts for table of contents...lol) Actually..I do enough of this
myself, I better cork it and get on with my reply.

First, seeing as how your not American and so, didn't go through all the American Civics and Government classes...there is one HUGE thing to note
right off the top. The Constitution is not the ultimate authority on law in the U.S.. I'd repeat for dramatic effect..but that's kinda silly in
present company. Anyway.... The Constitution is merely the guidelines and structure our nation is run by. The final authority on what IS and IS NOT
said in the Constitution is the Supreme Court and their word is the FINAL word. People underestimate that Branch or tend to forget it's there at all
sometimes....but they entirely OVER-RIDE the White House AND Capital Hill on what is legal, what isn't and how something is either of those two
things.

^^^ Thats critical to your first point.

#1 It's in the Constitution.

You're absolutely correct. That is among the shorter items in the entire document. They didn't figure it needed to say very much as it was self
evident for meaning at the time. Yet...they said enough and fully supported it in the related documents and personal writings of the founders
themselves. Still, it's been a major point of fighting and debate ......until 2009. In 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on The District of Columbia
vs. Heller et al.

In the first reference, it's plain language and easy to understand...it's also over-simplified:

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a
militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of
the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second
Amendment.p

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally
lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion
should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial
sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun
possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of
self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where
the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that
any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of
self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced
arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing
requirement.

There is more to both, so it's worth visiting the links. I put real time and space for this because it all but makes every other argument moot for
real effect. The President and Congress CANNOT over-rule this. There IS NO way that can be done. The ONLY option is for Congress to pass new laws,
hope the court agrees they pass muster, and see when they are brought by suit to the Court to review again.....assuming the laws don't violate the
ruling on the face of it, of course.

(This reply edit is driving me nuts w/o a character counter. I'll finish replying to the other points in a new message down thread.

Originally posted by bjax9er
You are not an American, the first Amendment does not apply to you, nor does the second amendment. Therefor you have no free speech to speak about our
second amendment.

Now take your toys and go home AGAIN.

Addressed here

I find this ironic since the argument they will always fall back on is the fact gun ownership is protected by the constitution, well so is free
speech!!! While this may not apply to me we are in an INTERNATIONAL forum where I can give my opinion on anything I like (US law included), whether
you choose to read it or not is upto you.

Now go away and let people who are interested in an intelligent discussion talk

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
You'll have to give me a couple mins to look this over, but I think it's fair to ask right up front... How detailed a point by point are you hoping
people give in reply? I can probably point at least half those with reasonable replies.

I think you are a small minded attention seeker. Comment will probably be removed but someone has to say it. Now go to every other
gun/videogame/whatever else you don't like thread and tell them why it needs to be banned and how it serves no purpose. Not returning to this thread
so don't expect a reply.

I think you are a small minded attention seeker. Comment will probably be removed but someone has to say it. Now go to every other
gun/videogame/whatever else you don't like thread and tell them why it needs to be banned and how it serves no purpose. Not returning to this thread
so don't expect a reply.

You obviously dont have anything intelligent to add or even bother to read what I wrote so your not wanted back on the thread so no loss

I only think guns and cigarettes should be banned (And yes Im a smoker, got 1 in my hand right now)

But yes your right, how foolish of me to think guns have anything to do with shooting sprees

Thank you for responding civily, I know you feel quite strongly about this

I addressed your above point here

I personally believe they should be banned, guns already in circulation should stay there but no more to be sold. Start a buyback scheme so that as
people no longer feel they need their firearms they can be turned in therefore taking them out of circulation.

Its correct that its an impossibility to take away everyones guns and I know Im not going to change anyones mind but Im more interested in an
intelligent discussion on the topic as opposed to a slinging match and I am open to having my mind changed despite what people think

I do not know which point you would apply my argument to, 8 or 9 I guess. We have a couple of major differences in our viewpoints. You believe in
hiring mercenary's, police, to do your killing for you. I do not. You believe those who are attacking, the criminals, should be allowed to live. I
again do not.

If MORE guns were out there in responsible hands there would be less criminals with guns because the criminal population would be shrunk drastically
by criminals being killed. From your points it greatly appears you have no faith in your fellow citizens, only in your paid mercenarys. If you check
back to the beginnings of the police force their job was not to kill for you, that was the citizen's job, The job of the police was to go after any
criminals the citizen did not manage to kill because the police had the time to do so. The citizen did not.

In the 60's when the peace and love culture started I wondered then just what would happen when there was no one to defend those who had chosen it.
That is what is happening now. I have far less faith in the hired mercenary's then I do in my fellow citizens who are NOT PAID to attack me or mine.
A citizen has far more respect for life then a police officer does if for no other reason then if a citizen kills indiscriminately he will go to jail
Not true for the police mercenary's. All they have to say is "I was afraid for my life." and they have carte blanch to kill whoever they wish with
immunity.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
2) We need them to defend ourselves against the government

Once again the US has the best military in the world, what exactly is an AK or even grenade launcher let alone handgun going to do against an army of
tanks, helicopters and drones except make you and your family a target?
Your military consists of American citizens, how many of your troops would be willing to fire on fellow citizens?
If it ever came to the Gov fighting the people I think they would pull out all the stops, even if you went to ground in the forests or mountains
somewhere, they have satellites that can read the writing on a small coin with heat sensing capabilities. How long do you think you will last?
In this day and age the most successful form of rebellion is a peaceful one, look at Egypt or as a better example India, both of these countries
achieved a change of government without violence, why can Americans not consider doing the same if it ever came to that?

Dude.. These are the same troops who've had no problem killing babies since the Afghan war started. These are the troops who control the drones which
will be over US airspace soon. These are the troops who will do whatever and tell you that they're "simply following orders".

You're saying there's no point in arming because we're gonna die anyway if we fight...?

Ok whomever removed this comment is on an agenda clearly with the op, What was typed is truly correct, the op is not a tax paying American citizen so
his/her rant thread is like me creating a thread demanding the queen be removed because it's no longer the mid-evil times and is not needed. Sure go
ahead and spout all the hate you want op about us gun toting Americans but this is not your country you really do have no say in it as neither do I
about yours. And last time I checked you can't make demands in your op, that people are not allowed to comment certain things just so long as it
doesn't break t/c.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.